9/11 Commision

[roundhead]

I have been told on this forum that the Commision isnt of a technical nature, so anything they say regarding technical information, its ok they lie about it and should be excused.

Even though the bald faced lie they told, regarding the towers construction, is raised in the notes in section 9, and references the FEMA Building Performance study as a source.

So they dont know, reference somebody who does know about the Towers construction, and STILL blatantly lie about it.

The Commision report is what it is, a work of fiction written by an administration insider, to reinforce the original tall tale.

[Quad4_72]

I have been told on this forum that the Commision isnt of a technical nature, so anything they say regarding technical information, its ok they lie about it and should be excused.

Even though the bald faced lie they told, regarding the towers construction, is raised in the notes in section 9, and references the FEMA Building Performance study as a source.

So they dont know, reference somebody who does know about the Towers construction, and STILL blatantly lie about it.

The Commision report is what it is, a work of fiction written by an administration insider, to reinforce the original tall tale.

Please cite the specific lie you are referring to. If you cannot do this, there is not point in continuing any discussion.

[Doctor Evil]

Also explain why do you think they were lying, rather than just getting something wrong.

[HawksFan]

That's it? That's all you got? One lie mistake in the entire report and it has to do with the towers construction?

I guess of all the things they could have lied about in that report, the fact that they picked that one is very telling, dontcha think? :rolleyes:

[gumboot]

I'm guessing he's referring to this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2680517#post2680517).

[roundhead]

Please cite the specific lie you are referring to. If you cannot do this, there is not point in continuing any discussion.



Sure, at the end of the Commision report, it cites references for each chapter.

The construction of the Towers is cited in the first notes on Chapter 9. Its references are from within the same section as is the bald faced lie regarding towers construction.

Griffin, among others, has quoted this glaring lie in a published book.I doubt his is the only reference to it.

Can somebody send me to a link where the Commision or its authors has fixed this error, or admitted the mistake?

Thanks in advance


Btw, as i am aware of this error, i find it unlikely the authors of the report are in the dark about it

[phunk]

I'm having trouble decoding your troofspeak. So the lie is in the same section as some references for chapter 9. And Griffin quoted the lie.

What is the lie?

[Quad4_72]

I'm guessing he's referring to this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2680517#post2680517).

So basically roundhead doesn't know WTF he's talking about correct?

[defaultdotxbe]

I'm having trouble decoding your troofspeak. So the lie is in the same section as some references for chapter 9. And Griffin quoted the lie.

What is the lie?
the "lie" IIRC is a misquote of the FEMA report, although the section of the commission report in question was describing the dimensions of the building so i fail to see why the error has anything to do with anything

and honestly, if this is the best the truthers can do to discredit the report, well, theyve actually supported it

[Jonnyclueless]

I have been told on this forum that the Commision isnt of a technical nature, so anything they say regarding technical information, its ok they lie about it and should be excused.

Even though the bald faced lie they told, regarding the towers construction, is raised in the notes in section 9, and references the FEMA Building Performance study as a source.

So they dont know, reference somebody who does know about the Towers construction, and STILL blatantly lie about it.

The Commision report is what it is, a work of fiction written by an administration insider, to reinforce the original tall tale.

:dl: :dl: :dl:

We have an epidemic of moonbattery here.

[Par]

Sure, at the end of the Commision report, it cites references for each chapter.

The construction of the Towers is cited in the first notes on Chapter 9. Its references are from within the same section as is the bald faced lie regarding towers construction.

Griffin, among others, has quoted this glaring lie in a published book.I doubt his is the only reference to it.

Can somebody send me to a link where the Commision or its authors has fixed this error, or admitted the mistake?

Thanks in advance


Btw, as i am aware of this error, i find it unlikely the authors of the report are in the dark about it



The problem here is that “Roundhead” has evidently conflated – on both a conceptual and a moral level – the notions of lies and errors.

[T.A.M.]

I have been told on this forum that the Commision isnt of a technical nature, so anything they say regarding technical information, its ok they lie about it and should be excused.

Even though the bald faced lie they told, regarding the towers construction, is raised in the notes in section 9, and references the FEMA Building Performance study as a source.

So they dont know, reference somebody who does know about the Towers construction, and STILL blatantly lie about it.

The Commision report is what it is, a work of fiction written by an administration insider, to reinforce the original tall tale.

I'm assuming either (A) you were tired when you wrote this, or (B) English is not your first language.

Anyway...

The 9/11 Commission was a bipartisan group of politicians, with the evil satan Zelikow as it's executive director (A staff position, not actually a member).

Did he have some control over what content got in and out, ok, but did he that much dictatorial authority as to make the report a "work of fiction"? Hardly, and you have no proof (outside of the scattered small error or misinterpretation) of the same.

Rather than ad hom and whine, which seems to be your usual MO, bring the evidence...come on, and don't just say "Read DRG's Book"...you bring all of these errors and omissions that make the report a "work of fiction".

TAM:)

[Pardalis]

Just like Holocaust denial. One small error and the whole thing is a lie. :rolleyes:

[WildCat]

Griffin, among others, has quoted this glaring lie in a published book.I doubt his is the only reference to it.

Can somebody send me to a link where the Commision or its authors has fixed this error, or admitted the mistake?
DRG claims there were no Arab names on the passenger manifests in his book. Is this a lie or a mistake? Has he corrected it? :rolleyes:

[Grizzly Bear]

DRG claims there were no Arab names on the passenger manifests in his book. Is this a lie or a mistake? Has he corrected it? :rolleyes:

Don't forget also the so called squibs on the top corner of WTC 7... Has he figured out that what he calls 'squibs' is actually damage to the the corner? It's been a couple years now, he still hasn't fixed it has he :rolleyes:

[lapman]

Just like Holocaust denial. One small error and the whole thing is a lie. :rolleyes:
And the "Truth Movement" can make huge errors and that's ok. :rolleyes"

[Travis]

The next time I find a mistake about a historical date in a physics text book I'm just going to throw the whole thing out. How could you trust it after that? I mean if they will lie about a date then they must also, obviously, be lying about the physics.

Roundhead, a lie is a willful obfuscation, distortion or concealment of fact. Do you have any proof that any technical errors in the 9/11 Commission were introduced deliberately with the intent to deceive?

Also, playing along with your delusion for second, even if it were a deliberately introduced error to what end would it serve and who would benefit from it? Conversely what would it impeded and who, or what, would be harmed by this error?

[jhunter1163]

Roundhead throws that word "lie" around in a very cavalier manner.

(Credit to Dave_46 for first making that joke.)

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Don't forget also the so called squibs on the top corner of WTC 7... Has he figured out that what he calls 'squibs' is actually damage to the the corner? It's been a couple years now, he still hasn't fixed it has he :rolleyes:


Actually, he did figure that one out. Although I'm not sure he ever got around to updating his little PowerPoint presentation. I do know that he used said presentation at least once after his retraction, with the whole "squibs" thing still intact.

[Jonnyclueless]

Just like Holocaust denial. One small error and the whole thing is a lie. :rolleyes:

So then how does PfffT fall into that? They have made for more errors than the 9/11 commission, as have CIT. He doesn't seem to have any problems with their errors.

[defaultdotxbe]

So then how does PfffT fall into that? They have made for more errors than the 9/11 commission, as have CIT. He doesn't seem to have any problems with their errors.
also, like holocaust denial, double standards are a necessity

[gumboot]

So basically roundhead doesn't know WTF he's talking about correct?


And in other news the Pope is Catholic, the earth is round, and Friday will be following Thursday this week.

[chillzero]

I have been told on this forum that the Commision isnt of a technical nature, so anything they say regarding technical information, its ok they lie about it and should be excused.

I don't think anyone would excuse lying about anything in such an important report. However, why would you just blindly accept what you 'have been told' without giving it proper consideration? Do you agree that it's not of a technical nature? If not, why do you disagree?

If there is a lie, why do you think it has been excused? Why do you think it's a lie and not an error - has it been addressed anywhere?

[funk de fino]

Does the fact roundhead has spelled commission wrong three times in his OP mean he has lied three times?

This certainly seems to be the gist of his arguments.

[DC]

for JREFers there are no lies, only misstakes, unless its a misstake from the truth movement, then its a blatant lie to sell some more DVD's for 2$ LOL

JREFers in denial.

[T.A.M.]

for Truthers there are no mistakes, only lies, unless a lie is from the truth movement, then it is obviously just a mistake because they are just asking questions.

Truthers in denial.

[funk de fino]

for JREFers there are no lies, only misstakes, unless its a misstake from the truth movement, then its a blatant lie to sell some more DVD's for 2$ LOL

JREFers in denial.

If a truther is shown where they made a mistake they ignore it and continue to repeat the mistake even though they know that it is wrong.

This makes it a lie. Most truthers do this.

If I make a mistake I will admit it, correct it and move on. Most rational people will do this.

Most of the leading lights of the TM are bare faced liars.

[chillzero]

for JREFers there are no lies, only misstakes, unless its a misstake from the truth movement, then its a blatant lie to sell some more DVD's for 2$ LOL

JREFers in denial.

You do realise that over 2,000 posts probably makes you a JREFer too, don't you?

ETA: in any case - there is a difference between a lie and a mistake. It would help you to learn the difference.

[RedIbis]

You do realise that over 2,000 posts probably makes you a JREFer too, don't you?


I hope that's true. I'd rather be called a jreffer than a twoofer. After all, you can't spell twoof without the woo.

[DC]

im a JREF poster but not a JREFer

[chillzero]

im a JREF poster but not a JREFer

Perhaps, to prevent derail, you could start a new thread to explain the difference?

[Bobert]

DRG claims there were no Arab names on the passenger manifests in his book. Is this a lie or a mistake? Has he corrected it? :rolleyes:

There you go!!!!!!!!11!!!!
DRG is what he is, a cyborg created by an NWO insider, to reinforce the TROOOOOOOOF.

[DC]

Perhaps, to prevent derail, you could start a new thread to explain the difference?

oh dear, you cant figure out that one?

okey

[Bobert]

im a JREF poster but not a JREFer

Dude 2k posts in 3 months?
YOU SIR are a JREF'er.
I have 1400 and some change IN 2 YEARS.

[Bobert]

for JREFers there are no lies, only misstakes, unless its a misstake from the truth movement, then its a blatant lie to sell some more DVD's for 2$ LOL

JREFers in denial.
Ooops sorry DC I LIED in my above post.
I have been JREF'er for less then 2 years.
Sorry wont happen again.
Should I buy a Woo DVD to atone for my sin?

[DC]

Ooops sorry DC I LIED in my above post.
I have been JREF'er for less then 2 years.
Sorry wont happen again.
Should I buy a Woo DVD to atone for my sin?

a book is far better than any DVD :/

[roundhead]

I said the Commision out and out lied, and it in fact did.

Here is an exact quote from John Farmer, before the Commision, which was in the final report, its in the notes section for section 9. Item 1.

I quote:

"The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft"

That is a bald faced lie, no matter how you spin it.

[Cuddles]

a book is far better than any DVD :/

I don't understand. How do I view books on YouTube?

[chillzero]

I said the Commision out and out lied, and it in fact did.

Here is an exact quote from John Farmer, before the Commision, which was in the final report, its in the notes section for section 9. Item 1.

I quote:

"The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft"

That is a bald faced lie, no matter how you spin it.

If this was a response to my questions.. you missed a few:
I don't think anyone would excuse lying about anything in such an important report. However, why would you just blindly accept what you 'have been told' without giving it proper consideration? Do you agree that it's not of a technical nature? If not, why do you disagree?

If there is a lie, why do you think it has been excused? Why do you think it's a lie and not an error - has it been addressed anywhere?

[chillzero]

oh dear, you cant figure out that one?

okey

I think most people understand that anything ending in 'er' means a member of that particular thing. So, a JREFer would normally be a member of the JREF, but it is also generally widened to include members of this forum as well. That would include ... you.

It's a shame you don't want to start a new thread to discuss this. I won't be commenting further here, because it's off topic, but I was interested in how you would define the difference.

[roundhead]

OK. I have clearly proved one Commision lie, here is another.


The Commision report states Cheney wasnt in PEOC till 9:58. This is clearly a lie, and doesnt square with testimony to the contrary the Commision was well aware of...

Firstly, Cheney's own account of his whereabouts..


Speaking to Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press only five days after 9/11, Cheney said: “[A]fter I talked to the president, . . . I went down into . . . the Presidential Emergency Operations Center. . . . [W]hen I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagon’s been hit.




Secondly:

In an ABC News program on the first anniversary of 9/11, Cheney’s White House photographer David Bohrer reported that, shortly after 9:00, some Secret Service agents came into Cheney’s office and said, “Sir, you have to come with us.” During this same program, Rice said: “As I was trying to find all of the principals, the Secret Service came in and said, ‘You have to leave now for the bunker. The Vice President’s already there. There may be a plane headed for the White House.’” ABC’s Charles Gibson then said: “In the bunker, the Vice President is joined by Rice and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta” (“9/11: Interviews by Peter Jennings,” ABC News, September 11, 2002).



Thirdly,

Richard Clarke reported that he, Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice had a brief meeting shortly after 9:03, following which the Secret Service wanted Cheney and Rice to go down to the PEOC. Rice, however, first went with Clarke to the White House’s Video Teleconferencing Center, where Clarke was to set up a video conference, which began at about 9:10. After spending a few minutes there, Rice said, according to Clarke: “You’re going to need some decisions quickly. I’m going to the PEOC to be with the Vice President. Tell us what you need.” At about 9:15, Norman Mineta arrived and Clarke “suggested he join the Vice President” (Against All Enemies, 2-5). Clarke thereby implied that Cheney was in the PEOC several minutes prior to 9:15.



Fourthly


The most well-known statement contradicting the 9/11 Commission was made by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta during his public testimony to the 9/11 Commission on May 23, 2003. Saying that he “arrived at the PEOC at about 9:20 AM,” Mineta reported that he then overheard part of an ongoing conversation, which had obviously begun before he arrived, between a young man and Vice President Cheney. This conversation was about a plane coming toward Washington and ended with Cheney confirming that “the orders still stand.” When Commissioner Timothy Roemer later asked Mineta how long after his arrival he overheard this conversation about whether the orders still stood, Mineta replied: “Probably about five or six minutes.” This would mean, Roemer pointed out, “about 9:25 or 9:26.”





Several of these statements support the damning testimony of Mineta, and none support the bald faced lie the Commision put in its final report, which addressed none of the above accounts, and leaves as supposed fact that Cheney arrived at 9:58.


The above is a clear example, and there are many others, that the Commision was not interested in any information that didnt support the "official"narrative.

In many cases, such evidence, like above, was simply ignored.

[chillzero]

OK. I have clearly proved one Commision lie,

Where did you do that? Can you link it, if you aren't going to post it here?

[funk de fino]

OK. I have clearly proved one Commision lie, here is another.


The Commision report states Cheney wasnt in PEOC till 9:58. This is clearly a lie, and doesnt square with testimony to the contrary the Commision was well aware of...

Firstly, Cheney's own account of his whereabouts..


Speaking to Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press only five days after 9/11, Cheney said: “[A]fter I talked to the president, . . . I went down into . . . the Presidential Emergency Operations Center. . . . [W]hen I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagon’s been hit.




Secondly:

In an ABC News program on the first anniversary of 9/11, Cheney’s White House photographer David Bohrer reported that, shortly after 9:00, some Secret Service agents came into Cheney’s office and said, “Sir, you have to come with us.” During this same program, Rice said: “As I was trying to find all of the principals, the Secret Service came in and said, ‘You have to leave now for the bunker. The Vice President’s already there. There may be a plane headed for the White House.’” ABC’s Charles Gibson then said: “In the bunker, the Vice President is joined by Rice and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta” (“9/11: Interviews by Peter Jennings,” ABC News, September 11, 2002).



Thirdly,

Richard Clarke reported that he, Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice had a brief meeting shortly after 9:03, following which the Secret Service wanted Cheney and Rice to go down to the PEOC. Rice, however, first went with Clarke to the White House’s Video Teleconferencing Center, where Clarke was to set up a video conference, which began at about 9:10. After spending a few minutes there, Rice said, according to Clarke: “You’re going to need some decisions quickly. I’m going to the PEOC to be with the Vice President. Tell us what you need.” At about 9:15, Norman Mineta arrived and Clarke “suggested he join the Vice President” (Against All Enemies, 2-5). Clarke thereby implied that Cheney was in the PEOC several minutes prior to 9:15.



Fourthly


The most well-known statement contradicting the 9/11 Commission was made by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta during his public testimony to the 9/11 Commission on May 23, 2003. Saying that he “arrived at the PEOC at about 9:20 AM,” Mineta reported that he then overheard part of an ongoing conversation, which had obviously begun before he arrived, between a young man and Vice President Cheney. This conversation was about a plane coming toward Washington and ended with Cheney confirming that “the orders still stand.” When Commissioner Timothy Roemer later asked Mineta how long after his arrival he overheard this conversation about whether the orders still stood, Mineta replied: “Probably about five or six minutes.” This would mean, Roemer pointed out, “about 9:25 or 9:26.”





Several of these statements support the damning testimony of Mineta, and none support the bald faced lie the Commision put in its final report, which addressed none of the above accounts, and leaves as supposed fact that Cheney arrived at 9:58.


The above is a clear example, and there are many others, that the Commision was not interested in any information that didnt support the "official"narrative.

In many cases, such evidence, like above, was simply ignored.

Norm Mineta clearly and categorically states that Mrs Cheney was in the PEOC when he ARRIVED.

This is in clear contradiction to his claim he arrived before 77 hit the Pentagon because Lynn Cheney did not arrive until after Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Mineta was wrong. Your claim is bunk.

Norm Mineta desribes the evacuation when he arrives. This did not happen until 09:45.

Clarke describes a phone call to Mineta when Mineta was in his car on the way to the PEOC at approx 09:28.

This is old stuff

[roundhead]

Where did you do that? Can you link it, if you aren't going to post it here?


I provided the exact quote, and where it can be found in the Commision report. I can only hold your hand so much.


If you would like to hear it regurgitated, Google John Farmer on Youtube. You can hear the exact same quoted stated before the Commision.

[WildCat]

OK. I have clearly proved one Commision lie,
Where did you do that? The only obvious lie proven in this thread is DRG claiming there were no Arab names on the flight manifests. He has never corrected it, therefore it is a lie.

But the lies of the truth movement don't bother you, do they? :rolleyes:

eta: c-o-m-m-i-s-s-i-o-n

[roundhead]

Where did you do that? The only obvious lie proven in this thread is DRG claiming there were no Arab names on the flight manifests. He has never corrected it, therefore it is a lie.

But the lies of the truth movement don't bother you, do they? :rolleyes:

eta: c-o-m-m-i-s-s-i-o-n



So you think the towers core was comprised of a hollow steel tube, then, correct?

[chillzero]

I provided the exact quote, and where it can be found in the Commision report. I can only hold your hand so much.


If you would like to hear it regurgitated, Google John Farmer on Youtube. You can hear the exact same quoted stated before the Commision.

Well, actually.. I saw that. I just assumed that when you claimed to have proven something, that you did more than just quote it. I expected perhaps evidence as to why it's a lie, and not an error. I mean... you do know the difference, right?

So... no? It's not a proven lie, then? That's a shame.
How about the other stuff I asked you?

[roundhead]

Norm Mineta clearly and categorically states that Mrs Cheney was in the PEOC when he ARRIVED.

This is in clear contradiction to his claim he arrived before 77 hit the Pentagon because Lynn Cheney did not arrive until after Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Mineta was wrong. Your claim is bunk.

Norm Mineta desribes the evacuation when he arrives. This did not happen until 09:45.

Clarke describes a phone call to Mineta when Mineta was in his car on the way to the PEOC at approx 09:28.

This is old stuff


Your right, coming up on 7 years now.

You didnt address Cheney's statement on Meet the Press.

And Mineta's testimony is spot on, and is substianted by others as well.

[chillzero]

Your right, coming up on 7 years now.

You didnt address Cheney's statement on Meet the Press.

And Mineta's testimony is spot on, and is substianted by others as well.

Well, maybe we should leave some of those other 'claims' until you've finished 'proving' the first one?

[roundhead]

From Jones report 2007 (a video of these statements is cited)



Former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta answered questions from members of 9/11 Truth Seattle.org about his testimony before the 9/11 Commission report.

Mineta says Vice President Cheney was "absolutely" already there when he arrived at approximately 9:25 a.m. in the PEOC (Presidential Emergency Operations Center) bunker on the morning of 9/11. Mineta seemed shocked to learn that the 9/11 Commission Report claimed Cheney had not arrived there until 9:58-- after the Pentagon had been hit, a report that Mineta definitively contradicted.

Norman Mineta revealed that Lynn Cheney was also in the PEOC bunker already at the time of his arrival, along with a number of other staff

[funk de fino]

Your right, coming up on 7 years now.

You didnt address Cheney's statement on Meet the Press.

And Mineta's testimony is spot on, and is substianted by others as well.

It was an interview not a testimony. It is wrong and russert adds comments which cheney does not confirm.

Please address the Lynn Cheney evidence please. This makes Mineta wrong about flight 77 and when he arrived.

Also why he describes and evacuation that took place at 09:45 when he arrived at 09:20.

Do not run away with your fingers in your ears again.

[roundhead]

From Information clearing house:



Mineta’s account was also supported in advance by a Wall Street Journal article, published about a month after 9/11, which told the story of that morning from the perspective of American and United Airlines. Discussing the actions of Donald J. Carty and Jim Goodwin, top executives of AA and UA, respectively, this article said:

“Mr. Carty and Mr. Goodwin . . . were talking on the phone with Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, who was in a government command bunker with Vice President Dick Cheney. Mr. Carty told Mr. Mineta that American was ordering all 162 of its planes out of the sky; United already had ordered its 122 planes down. About five minutes later, the FAA shut down the skies over the U.S. completely to all but military aircraft. At [9:45 a.m.],18 American lost contact with a third flight, . . . But . . . radio contact was restored in 10 minutes. . . . Soon, reports began pouring in that a plane had crashed into the Pentagon.”19

Mineta had the FAA give two orders that morning. The first one, which was to prevent any more planes from taking off, was at 9:26. The second, which was for all planes to be brought down, occurred at 9:45, after the Pentagon was struck.20 In describing the FAA order that occurred before the attack on the Pentagon, the Journal erroneously called it an order to bring all planes down (confusion between the two orders was quite common).21 It is clear, in any case, that these two airline officials, as paraphrased by the Journal, reported that Cheney was present in the PEOC prior to the attack on the Pentagon



In addition:


By the Commission’s own admission, however, the Secret Service said that “the 9:37 entry time in their timeline was based on alarm data, which is no longer retrievable.”11 The claim that Cheney entered the corridor at 9:37, in other words, is based on no official documentation.

[roundhead]

It was an interview not a testimony. It is wrong and russert adds comments which cheney does not confirm.

Please address the Lynn Cheney evidence please. This makes Mineta wrong about flight 77 and when he arrived.

Also why he describes and evacuation that took place at 09:45 when he arrived at 09:20.

Do not run away with your fingers in your ears again.



The Commision states Lynn arrived at 9:52. It has no referencable info to base that claim on. But it does have sworn testimony by Mineta which clearly say the above 9:52 statement by the commision is false.Mineta clearly says she was with him when he arrived at 9:20 ish.



The only information out there that gives substance to the 9:58 arrival is the Conclusion of the Commision, based on nothing, as all evidence they are aware of is contradictory.


Everybody agrees except the Commision.



Quit wimpering about what Cheney said on Meet the Press. It directly contradicts the Commision, and is fatal to your flawed arguement. All you can try and do is diminish it, and its on the record, and the details he states further support the testimony of Mineta and others.

[Pardalis]

So there's a discrepancy in the timelines, how is it a lie?

[HyJinX]

What color were Mineta's shoes?

[roundhead]

So far, two out and out lies.

The towers construction lie.

The Commision lie regarding Cheney's arrival time at the Peoc. I have cited at least 5 sources that refute the Commisions 9:58 narrative clearly.

The Commision makes the 9:58 statement, and admits it has ZERO data to reference this claim, stating such info is "irretrievable".



How many more lies does it take to prove the Commision was a farce?


10 more, 20 more?

[funk de fino]

The Commision states Lynn arrived at 9:52. It has no referencable info to base that claim on. But it does have sworn testimony by Mineta which clearly say the above 9:52 statement by the commision is false.Mineta clearly says she was with him when he arrived at 9:20 ish.



The only information out there that gives substance to the 9:58 arrival is the Conclusion of the Commision, based on nothing, as all evidence they are aware of is contradictory.


Everybody agrees except the Commision.



Quit wimpering about what Cheney said on Meet the Press. It directly contradicts the Commision, and is fatal to your flawed arguement. All you can try and do is diminish it, and its on the record, and the details he states further support the testimony of Mineta and others.

Completely wrong. Lynn Cheney did not get told to go to the PEOC until after Flight 77 hit the Peentagon. It was the reason she was evacuated there. She was downtown when she was informed of incident and was then taken by the secret service to the PEOC after 09:45. This means Mineta is wrong about something. What is it? Is it his arrival time or the fact that Lynn Cheney was there when he arrived?

How could he see the evacuation at 09:45 if he arrived before it at 09:20?

[chillzero]

So far, two out and out lies.

The towers construction lie.



You should really go and research the difference between a lie and an error before continuing to make a fool of yourself in this manner. You also need to check the definition of 'proven', as you have yet to prove anything. Just because you state something, doesn't make it fact.

[roundhead]

You should really go and research the difference between a lie and an error before continuing to make a fool of yourself in this manner. You also need to check the definition of 'proven', as you have yet to prove anything. Just because you state something, doesn't make it fact.


What do you mean, havent proven.


The "Steel tube"is right in the Commision report..this is fact

It is also fact that isnt how the core of the Towers is constructed.


It was left to stand in the final report.


Its a bald faced lie, no amount of dancing can change that. If you would provide a link stating the Commision is aware it published false information(as they MUST be)and has issued a correction at this late date, cool. If not, it stands as a lie.


You lose, your owned, period

[johnny karate]

Hey roundhead, if the 9/11 Commission Report is so chocked full of falsehoods, and thus a smokescreen used as cover for the real conspirators, why hasn't this glaringly obvious and monumentally significant information been discerned and/or revealed by a single MSM outlet, law enforcement agency, or investigative body on the entire planet?

[chillzero]

What do you mean, havent proven.


The "Steel tube"is right in the Commision report..this is fact

It is also fact that isnt how the core of the Towers is constructed.


It was left to stand in the final report.


Its a bald faced lie, no amount of dancing can change that. If you would provide a link stating the Commision is aware it published false information(as they MUST be)and has issued a correction at this late date, cool. If not, it stands as a lie.


You lose, your owned, period

It was your claim, which you have not supported by anything other than your say-so.


The difference between a lie and an error is that you must be able to demonstrate that the falsity was knowingly stated. Was it? Have you any admission of this after the fact? Have any corrections been made to the report?

[Minadin]

What do you mean, havent proven.


The "Steel tube"is right in the Commision report..this is fact

It is also fact that isnt how the core of the Towers is constructed.


It was left to stand in the final report.


Its a bald faced lie, no amount of dancing can change that. If you would provide a link stating the Commision is aware it published false information(as they MUST be)and has issued a correction at this late date, cool. If not, it stands as a lie.


You lose, your owned, period

It could also be imprecise language used by non-technical people who aren't aware of the subtle differences in the various terms, and didn't bother to look into it in any depth, because for the sake of the document they were producing, it didn't matter.

For instance, I hear folks who don't know any better refer to steel beams in contemporary buildings as I-Beams all the time, when in fact what they are referring to is a Wide Flange Beam. I-Beams are something else entirely and for the most part aren't used or manufactured anymore.

If there's a newspaper article about a construction project and the reporter writes that they've already begun welding the steel I-Beams into place, is that reporter:

a) lying
b) making an unintentional error
c) being imprecise with his language

And, does it even matter for his story if the main purpose of the article is to let folks know that the new luxury hotel being built downtown should be open by March?

[T.A.M.]

Rather than read all of his jibberish, can someone answer me if roundhead has acknowledged the difference between a lie (an intentional deception or falsehood) versus a mistake (something said that was later shown to be in error)?

Because to prove the commission lied YOU MUST prove, with EVIDENCE, that they INTENTIONALLY misled with the statement in question.

So where is the proof that the statement about the "hollow core" of the WTC was an INTENTIONAL DECEPTION??

TAM:)

[WildCat]

Rather than read all of his jibberish, can someone answer me if roundhead has acknowledged the difference between a lie (an intentional deception or falsehood) versus a mistake (something said that was later shown to be in error)?
It's quite simple T.A.M., a mistake is every claim ever written by David Ray Griffin, the entire Loose Change series, Willie Rodriguez's ever-changing tale, 11.2 Gs, etc etc.

A lie is a footnote in a several hundred page report erroneously citing a fact which has nothing to do with the content of the report.

All clear?

[T.A.M.]

ahh, I see, well then roundhead should just relax, and return to looking at the orange-green sky in his world.

TAM:)

[roundhead]

It was your claim, which you have not supported by anything other than your say-so.


The difference between a lie and an error is that you must be able to demonstrate that the falsity was knowingly stated. Was it? Have you any admission of this after the fact? Have any corrections been made to the report?



I will gladly retract my "LIE" statement, if you can show the Commision has publically retracted it.And explained how the mistake was made in the first place.

If not, after this lie has been allowed to stand this long, uncorrected, it must be assumed it was in fact intentional.



Here is a clip which parrots the final Commision narrative:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kW35q0BghM

[T.A.M.]

I will gladly retract my "LIE" statement, if you can show the Commision has publically retracted it.And explained how the mistake was made in the first place.

If not, after this lie has been allowed to stand this long, uncorrected, it must be assumed it was in fact intentional.



Here is a clip which parrots the final Commision narrative:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kW35q0BghM

For the love of god. So you assume all mistakes are intentional, or just those coming from da big bad ebil gubmint?

This is hopeless.

TAM:)

[HyJinX]

I think we should change the name of the "Stundies" to the "Roundheads".

[roundhead]

It's quite simple T.A.M., a mistake is every claim ever written by David Ray Griffin, the entire Loose Change series, Willie Rodriguez's ever-changing tale, 11.2 Gs, etc etc.

A lie is a footnote in a several hundred page report erroneously citing a fact which has nothing to do with the content of the report.

All clear?


HELLO...Dismissing the fact the Towers used 47 steel columns as its core, and inserting the LIE they instead consisted of a "Hollow steel Tube" has nothing to do with the content of the report? HA, HA.

And now, not addressing this blatant lie, nearly 4 years after its publication, is not a lie.
Sure.

They lied, havent corrected it even 4 years later, in the face of published criticism, pointing it out, its a LIE.

[chillzero]

I will gladly retract my "LIE" statement, if you can show the Commision has publically retracted it.And explained how the mistake was made in the first place.

If not, after this lie has been allowed to stand this long, uncorrected, it must be assumed it was in fact intentional.



Here is a clip which parrots the final Commision narrative:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kW35q0BghM

It was your claim, which you have not supported by anything other than your say-so. The burden of proof is on you to support your claim. I have made no claim in either direction.


The difference between a lie and an error is that you must be able to demonstrate that the falsity was knowingly stated. Was it? Have you any admission of this after the fact? Have any corrections been made to the report?

[WildCat]

I will gladly retract my "LIE" statement, if you can show the Commision has publically retracted it.And explained how the mistake was made in the first place.
No, you won't. Which will make the above statement a lie. :rolleyes:

If not, after this lie has been allowed to stand this long, uncorrected,
Maybe because it is completely immaterial to what the report is about and nobody gives a damn except for the 1% or so people who are truthers?

it must be assumed it was in fact intentional.
Let's go with that a bit... how could this possibly further the conspiracy?

Here is a clip which parrots the final Commision narrative:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kW35q0BghM
Here's your "how": The construction of the World Trade Center towers was often referred to a "tube within a tube" design. Someone unfamiliar with what that meant simply assumed one giant steel tube as the core, rather than the 47 columns that actually made up the core.

Wasn't he of the "3" rebar on 4' centers" claim using this to "prove" that the WTC had a concrete core? :p

[WildCat]

Let's go with that a bit... how could this possibly further the conspiracy?
I'd just like to emphasize that roundhead will not answer this question from my last post.

It will be as if it is completely invisible to him, or we'll get the old "that's why we need a new investigation" canard.

[roundhead]

I'd just like to emphasize that roundhead will not answer this question from my last post.

It will be as if it is completely invisible to him, or we'll get the old "that's why we need a new investigation" canard.



To the casual observer, watching the Towers come down at free fall speed, and questioning the why and how of it, swallowing the "hollow steel tube"lie would certainly make the collapse MORE PLAUSIBLE.


Again, it hasnt been redacted, that i am aware of, in spite of it being called to attention prominently several years ago. That being a fact, it is proveably a lie. And likely was put in the original narrative as such.

If you make a huge mistake such as this, are well aware of it, and choose to not address it, its a lie.

[WildCat]

To the casual observer, watching the Towers come down at free fall speed, and questioning the why and how of it, swallowing the "hollow steel tube"lie would certainly make the collapse MORE PLAUSIBLE.
So they put a footnote in a report that came out 3 years later?!

That few people actually read?

Really?

Is that your final answer?

[Matthew Best]

And he still can't spell "Commission" properly, despite being told over and over again.

What does it mean when someone refuses to correct an error in the face of published criticism pointing out it's an error? Or has roundhead issued a footnote correcting his error that I haven't yet seen?

[Par]

If you make a huge mistake such as this, are well aware of it, and choose to not address it, its a lie.


Just so we’re clear, is this what you are saying?:

It’s possible that originally it was a genuine mistake. But the fact that is has never been formally retracted has “converted” it into a lie.

[johnny karate]

Hey roundhead, if the 9/11 Commission Report is so chocked full of falsehoods, and thus a smokescreen used as cover for the real conspirators, why hasn't this glaringly obvious and monumentally significant information been discerned and/or revealed by a single MSM outlet, law enforcement agency, or investigative body on the entire planet?

Bump for roundhead.

[Travis]

I fail to see how either of these mistakes undermines, in any way, the Commissions mission.

Oh yeah, someone seems to have ignored my post #17.

Roundhead, a lie is a willful obfuscation, distortion or concealment of fact. Do you have any proof that any technical errors in the 9/11 Commission were introduced deliberately with the intent to deceive?

Also, playing along with your delusion for second, even if it were a deliberately introduced error to what end would it serve and who would benefit from it? Conversely what would it impeded and who, or what, would be harmed by this error?

Well????

[roundhead]

Just so we’re clear, is this what you are saying?:

It’s possible that originally it was a genuine mistake. But the fact that is has never been formally retracted has “converted” it into a lie.


It is extremely unlikely a mistake of that magnitude was made unintentionally. As its certainly been pointed out in published form, and still hasnt been redacted, it hard to not come to the conclusion it was an intentional lie.


To dispute what i say, and claim it was unintentional, calls into question the validity of the whole report. As this instance is far from the only grave mistake that was made in the report.


BTW...I apologize for my spelling error

[chillzero]

It is extremely unlikely a mistake of that magnitude was made unintentionally. As its certainly been pointed out in published form, and still hasnt been redacted, it hard to not come to the conclusion it was an intentional lie.


Drawing conclusions is not the same as proving, you know?

[roundhead]

Drawing conclusions is not the same as proving, you know?


I was trying to be nice about it, why i dont know.

This issue is a major one, its not an insignificant point. Its wrong in the Commission Report, its unfeasable that this is unknown to the authors of the report. It still stands, uncorrected.

It is a bald faced lie.

[roundhead]

Drawing conclusions is not the same as proving, you know?


I was trying to be nice about it, why i dont know.

This issue is a major one, its not an insignificant point. Its wrong in the Commission Report, its unfeasable that this is unknown to the authors of the report. It still stands, uncorrected.

It is a bald faced, intentionally deceptive lie.

[Par]

Just so we’re clear, is this what you are saying?:
It’s possible that originally it was a genuine mistake. But the fact that is has never been formally retracted has “converted” it into a lie.

It is extremely unlikely a mistake of that magnitude was made unintentionally. As its certainly been pointed out in published form, and still hasnt been redacted, it hard to not come to the conclusion it was an intentional lie. To dispute what i say, and claim it was unintentional, calls into question the validity of the whole report. As this instance is far from the only grave mistake that was made in the report.


Well, that's progress. So there is no objective evidence that it was originally intentional. But that doesn’t matter, as even if originally it was a genuine mistake, it essentially invalidates the report as a whole. Is that right?

[Par]

This issue is a major one, its not an insignificant point. Its wrong in the Commission Report, its unfeasable that this is unknown to the authors of the report. It still stands, uncorrected. It is a bald faced lie.


This is confusing. Just so we’re clear, is this what you are saying?: It’s possible that originally it was a genuine mistake. But the fact that is has never been formally retracted has “converted” it into a lie.

[johnny karate]

Hey roundhead, if the 9/11 Commission Report is so chocked full of falsehoods, and thus a smokescreen used as cover for the real conspirators, why hasn't this glaringly obvious and monumentally significant information been discerned and/or revealed by a single MSM outlet, law enforcement agency, or investigative body on the entire planet?

Bump for roundhead.

[WildCat]

This issue is a major one, its not an insignificant point.
To reiterate, your theory is this was inserted into a footnote of the report to convince anyone with doubts that the WTC actually had a single incredibly massive core column?

Even though the real info was readily available?

And the report didn't come out until 3 years later, and was read by few?

And NIST didn't go along with the charade (even though you think they're in on it too) but said there were 47 core columns?

You really have no idea how ridiculous that sounds, do you?

[funk de fino]

Repeated for roundhead

Completely wrong. Lynn Cheney did not get told to go to the PEOC until after Flight 77 hit the Peentagon. It was the reason she was evacuated there. She was downtown when she was informed of incident and was then taken by the secret service to the PEOC after 09:45. This means Mineta is wrong about something. What is it? Is it his arrival time or the fact that Lynn Cheney was there when he arrived?

How could he see the evacuation at 09:45 if he arrived before it at 09:20?

Well?

[Bobert]

Roundhead,
How old are you?
My guess is 14 but wanted to ask you instead o just throwing it out there.

[Minadin]

It could also be imprecise language used by non-technical people who aren't aware of the subtle differences in the various terms, and didn't bother to look into it in any depth, because for the sake of the document they were producing, it didn't matter.

For instance, I hear folks who don't know any better refer to steel beams in contemporary buildings as I-Beams all the time, when in fact what they are referring to is a Wide Flange Beam. I-Beams are something else entirely and for the most part aren't used or manufactured anymore.

If there's a newspaper article about a construction project and the reporter writes that they've already begun welding the steel I-Beams into place, is that reporter:

a) lying
b) making an unintentional error
c) being imprecise with his language

And, does it even matter for his story if the main purpose of the article is to let folks know that the new luxury hotel being built downtown should be open by March?

It is extremely unlikely a mistake of that magnitude was made unintentionally. As its certainly been pointed out in published form, and still hasnt been redacted, it hard to not come to the conclusion it was an intentional lie.


To dispute what i say, and claim it was unintentional, calls into question the validity of the whole report. As this instance is far from the only grave mistake that was made in the report.


BTW...I apologize for my spelling error

I was trying to be nice about it, why i dont know.

This issue is a major one, its not an insignificant point. Its wrong in the Commission Report, its unfeasable that this is unknown to the authors of the report. It still stands, uncorrected.

It is a bald faced, intentionally deceptive lie.

You don't think that it's possible that they simply don't care to correct their terminology? What if their definition of what they said differs from your interpretation of it?

For instance, most people would say that birds bones are hollow, yet in fact they have more structure to space ratio than did the steel core in the WTC towers.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12532488f7bedd0b1d.jpg

Perhaps the writers of the report simply meant "hollow" and "steel" in their own seperate meanings - the core is hollow in that it's certainly not one solid piece - there's space inside of it, like the bird bone. It's also certainly made of steel as opposed to concrete, which you'll find in many buildings.

You're attibuting to malice here something which can easily be explained by things far less heinous than even general incompetence. Your argument boils down to semantics.

[gumboot]

I said the Commision out and out lied, and it in fact did.

Here is an exact quote from John Farmer, before the Commision, which was in the final report, its in the notes section for section 9. Item 1.

I quote:

"The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft"

That is a bald faced lie, no matter how you spin it.


No it isn't.

[gumboot]

Just to recap:

1. The core of the WTC tower core was a hollow steel tube formed by 47 steel columns.
2. Norm Mineta did not testify under oath.
3. Norm Mineta's timeline is incorrect.

Got anything else?

[T.A.M.]

Do the truthers actually believe that the author of the "hollow steel tube" line ACTUALLY, LITERALLY meant a gigantic, 1300 foot tall, steel TUBE (A round hollow tube)? Really???

OMG...I am nearly speechless at the stupidity.

TAM:)

[WildCat]

Do the truthers actually believe that the author of the "hollow steel tube" line ACTUALLY, LITERALLY meant a gigantic, 1300 foot tall, steel TUBE (A round hollow tube)? Really???

OMG...I am nearly speechless at the stupidity.

TAM:)
That is exactly what roundhead is claiming. And to convince everyone in the world of that they inserted a footnote into a 250 page report 3 years later.

[Myriad]

I'm a little late here, but I also see the "hollow steel tube" description as a simplified description, not even an error, let alone a lie.

It's no more an error than saying "I brought you a glass of water" when the "glass" is actually a clear plastic cup and the "water" is tap water that also contains dissolved gases and various trace minerals rather than pure water.

If the wtc tower cores were not made of steel, what were they made of?

If they were not hollow, then what were they filled with?

If they were not tube-shaped, what shape were they? (Note that round is not the only shape a tube can be. For instance: http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXR843&P=FR)

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Wolrab]

Hey, give him some credit! He clearly didn't say "hollow steel tube" he said, "hollow steel SHAFT", so lets give him the "shaft" already....

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I know roundhead has been suspended, but...

It is extremely unlikely a mistake of that magnitude [...]


What magnitude? It's a freakin' footnote on a single page of a 250-page report and it has nothing at all to do with the focus of that report.

Here's a simple test for determining the significance of an error: Ask yourself, "If the error is corrected, how is the result affected?"

Do you, roundhead, believe that if this error is corrected, the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission Report would be significantly different than they currently are? If not, why do you insist on claiming that it is a significant mistake?

[WildCat]

If not, why do you insist on claiming that it is a significant mistake?
Because it's all he's got!

[Bobert]

LOL poor kid got himself suspended.

[Wolrab]

Wow, he really got shafted.....isn't there some kind of prize or check for me?

[gumboot]

For what it's worth, in my investigation of DRGs lie claim regarding the hollow steel tube quote, I cited numerous cases of professionals describing the WTC towers as a "tube".

NIST:

The first, the exterior structural subsystem, was a vertical square tube that consisted of 236 narrow columns, 59 on each face from the 10th floor to the 107th floor (Figure 1-3).

C. P. Wang (one of the key architects for Taipei 101):

So we had an emergency meeting with the owner we tried to simulate what if the similar incident would happen to this building? We know the WTC in NY is basically a tube in a tube design with very thin exterior wall. It is a very smart and genius design to me but in Taipei with the earthquake and typhoon we are not able to do that. We need a very strong building and we have very big steel columns.

Graduating Engineer magazine:

The strength and redundancy of the structure itself, however, was the direct result of careful planning by the engineers who designed the buildings. The WTC towers utilized tube in tube construction, which provided primary support to the structures from external sheathing.

Dr Griffin's assertion - and presumably Roundhead's - is that describing the core as a "tube" somehow ignores the core columns. This simply does not follow. A tube must have a wall of some thickness, regardless of whether the tube is hollow or not. The 47 core columns formed the wall of the tube.

[Travis]

People will often refer to all skyscrapers as "office buildings" even if they are residential structures. Besides the little excursion here in this thread into banal uncomprehending blustering we also see how Truthers can't get over the fact that someone who calls something "molten steel" might actually just mean some sort of "molten material." Ultimately the problem is that the Truth Movement believes either "colloquialisms" = "evil lies" or that colloquialisms just don't exist (despite the fact that Truthers continue to call shaped demolition explosives "squibs" simply because other Truthers call them that).

[T.A.M.]

Without disputing semantics, the truth movement has nothing...not that they have much to start.

TAM:)

[tsig]

OK. I have clearly proved one Commision lie, here is another.


The Commision report states Cheney wasnt in PEOC till 9:58. This is clearly a lie, and doesnt square with testimony to the contrary the Commision was well aware of...

Firstly, Cheney's own account of his whereabouts..


Speaking to Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press only five days after 9/11, Cheney said: “[A]fter I talked to the president, . . . I went down into . . . the Presidential Emergency Operations Center. . . . [W]hen I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagon’s been hit.




Secondly:

In an ABC News program on the first anniversary of 9/11, Cheney’s White House photographer David Bohrer reported that, shortly after 9:00, some Secret Service agents came into Cheney’s office and said, “Sir, you have to come with us.” During this same program, Rice said: “As I was trying to find all of the principals, the Secret Service came in and said, ‘You have to leave now for the bunker. The Vice President’s already there. There may be a plane headed for the White House.’” ABC’s Charles Gibson then said: “In the bunker, the Vice President is joined by Rice and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta” (“9/11: Interviews by Peter Jennings,” ABC News, September 11, 2002).



Thirdly,

Richard Clarke reported that he, Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice had a brief meeting shortly after 9:03, following which the Secret Service wanted Cheney and Rice to go down to the PEOC. Rice, however, first went with Clarke to the White House’s Video Teleconferencing Center, where Clarke was to set up a video conference, which began at about 9:10. After spending a few minutes there, Rice said, according to Clarke: “You’re going to need some decisions quickly. I’m going to the PEOC to be with the Vice President. Tell us what you need.” At about 9:15, Norman Mineta arrived and Clarke “suggested he join the Vice President” (Against All Enemies, 2-5). Clarke thereby implied that Cheney was in the PEOC several minutes prior to 9:15.



Fourthly


The most well-known statement contradicting the 9/11 Commission was made by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta during his public testimony to the 9/11 Commission on May 23, 2003. Saying that he “arrived at the PEOC at about 9:20 AM,” Mineta reported that he then overheard part of an ongoing conversation, which had obviously begun before he arrived, between a young man and Vice President Cheney. This conversation was about a plane coming toward Washington and ended with Cheney confirming that “the orders still stand.” When Commissioner Timothy Roemer later asked Mineta how long after his arrival he overheard this conversation about whether the orders still stood, Mineta replied: “Probably about five or six minutes.” This would mean, Roemer pointed out, “about 9:25 or 9:26.”





Several of these statements support the damning testimony of Mineta, and none support the bald faced lie the Commision put in its final report, which addressed none of the above accounts, and leaves as supposed fact that Cheney arrived at 9:58.


The above is a clear example, and there are many others, that the Commision was not interested in any information that didnt support the "official"narrative.

In many cases, such evidence, like above, was simply ignored.

on page 19 they misused a comma and on page 21 they misspelled a word then finally on page 30 they had a runon sentence.

You grab the torches I have the pitchforks. Let's Roll!!

[WildCat]

When roundhead comes back I can't wait to hear him defend his claim that this footnote in a 250 page report was an attempt to make the world believe that the WTC had one gargantuan core column containing all the elevators!

[CurtC]

Everyone, as Wolram has already noted, the footnote said "hollow steel shaft" not "hollow steel tube." If we're going to be nitpicking insignificant and imprecise use of words, let's at least nitpick the correct words.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Everyone, as Wolram has already noted, the footnote said "hollow steel shaft" not "hollow steel tube." If we're going to be nitpicking insignificant and imprecise use of words, let's at least nitpick the correct words.


And I wonder how roundhead could have made an error of that magnitude... :rolleyes:

[Slayhamlet]

And I wonder how roundhead could have made an error of that magnitude... :rolleyes:

The word "liar" comes to mind.

[pomeroo]

OK. I have clearly proved one Commision lie, here is another.


The Commision report states Cheney wasnt in PEOC till 9:58. This is clearly a lie, and doesnt square with testimony to the contrary the Commision was well aware of...

Firstly, Cheney's own account of his whereabouts..


Speaking to Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press only five days after 9/11, Cheney said: “[A]fter I talked to the president, . . . I went down into . . . the Presidential Emergency Operations Center. . . . [W]hen I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagon’s been hit.




Secondly:

In an ABC News program on the first anniversary of 9/11, Cheney’s White House photographer David Bohrer reported that, shortly after 9:00, some Secret Service agents came into Cheney’s office and said, “Sir, you have to come with us.” During this same program, Rice said: “As I was trying to find all of the principals, the Secret Service came in and said, ‘You have to leave now for the bunker. The Vice President’s already there. There may be a plane headed for the White House.’” ABC’s Charles Gibson then said: “In the bunker, the Vice President is joined by Rice and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta” (“9/11: Interviews by Peter Jennings,” ABC News, September 11, 2002).



Thirdly,

Richard Clarke reported that he, Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice had a brief meeting shortly after 9:03, following which the Secret Service wanted Cheney and Rice to go down to the PEOC. Rice, however, first went with Clarke to the White House’s Video Teleconferencing Center, where Clarke was to set up a video conference, which began at about 9:10. After spending a few minutes there, Rice said, according to Clarke: “You’re going to need some decisions quickly. I’m going to the PEOC to be with the Vice President. Tell us what you need.” At about 9:15, Norman Mineta arrived and Clarke “suggested he join the Vice President” (Against All Enemies, 2-5). Clarke thereby implied that Cheney was in the PEOC several minutes prior to 9:15.



Fourthly


The most well-known statement contradicting the 9/11 Commission was made by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta during his public testimony to the 9/11 Commission on May 23, 2003. Saying that he “arrived at the PEOC at about 9:20 AM,” Mineta reported that he then overheard part of an ongoing conversation, which had obviously begun before he arrived, between a young man and Vice President Cheney. This conversation was about a plane coming toward Washington and ended with Cheney confirming that “the orders still stand.” When Commissioner Timothy Roemer later asked Mineta how long after his arrival he overheard this conversation about whether the orders still stood, Mineta replied: “Probably about five or six minutes.” This would mean, Roemer pointed out, “about 9:25 or 9:26.”





Several of these statements support the damning testimony of Mineta, and none support the bald faced lie the Commision put in its final report, which addressed none of the above accounts, and leaves as supposed fact that Cheney arrived at 9:58.


The above is a clear example, and there are many others, that the Commision was not interested in any information that didnt support the "official"narrative.

In many cases, such evidence, like above, was simply ignored.



Hey, Child, how's the supply-and-demand thing coming along? You still can't understand anything? Too bad.

You can't win on the Norman Mineta crap. Your lies have all been exposed. Mineta's timeline is still off by forty minutes.

You're not trying very hard these days. Yes, your evil movement is dead, but there are other stupid fantasies. I suggest going full-time into moon-landing denial.

[WildCat]

When roundhead comes back I can't wait to hear him defend his claim that this footnote in a 250 page report was an attempt to make the world believe that the WTC had one gargantuan core column containing all the elevators!
Roundhead is posting again but doesn't seem too interested in his thread any more. :(

[roundhead]

Like a sparkling clean non splattered red bandana in a Pennsylvania field, i am going to mysteriously appear on my pontoon boat in about twenty minutes. Time to leave work and make the 15 minute drive home.:D

[Slayhamlet]

Like a sparkling clean non splattered red bandana in a Pennsylvania field, i am going to mysteriously appear on my pontoon boat in about twenty minutes. Time to leave work and make the 15 minute drive home.:D

You're lying again.

[MIKILLINI]

I was trying to be nice about it, why i dont know.

This issue is a major one, its not an insignificant point. Its wrong in the Commission Report, its unfeasable that this is unknown to the authors of the report. It still stands, uncorrected.

It is a bald faced, intentionally deceptive lie.

Gee Roundhead, I hope your argument isn't based on the "propitiousness" of the language to prove intent.

Other twoofers have argued that the Project for a New American Century was an "conspiracy" blueprint written by the Neocons to subsequently broaden the American empire.

Twoofers claim the "New Pearl Harbor" was created intentionally on 9/11 in the form of LIHOP/MIHOP, under the assumption that the Neocons made it happen so they could bring about the PNAC changes quicker.

You bring up the same assumption here, claiming one part of the commission report to be intentionally false.

But here's your problem RH, can you prove this was written with the intent to mislead?

[moon1969]

Too bad Henry Kissinger was not the leader of that commision.

[pomeroo]

Like a sparkling clean non splattered red bandana in a Pennsylvania field, i am going to mysteriously appear on my pontoon boat in about twenty minutes. Time to leave work and make the 15 minute drive home.:D


Been working on the supply-and-demand thing? No? Oh, well.

Mineta's timeline is still off by forty minutes, Child.

[Bananaman]

Pom, I'm struggling with myself over telling you this, so I thought I'd put it on the quieter of the threads you've posted in.

Last night I watched a couple of Hardfire episodes featuring Fetzer to cheer me up on a Saturday night after my girlfriend had bought some chocolate ice-cream. (That wasn't the hard part of the day by the way. That was the good bit, just to clarify things.) I don't know if it was the ice-cream or not but she thought you were hot. She's still asleep at the moment and I'm disturbed. I'm not making this up.

Is this a celebrity reaction you often get or is my girlfriend just odd? (I'll refrain from giving my opinion - or showing her this thread.)

Bananaman.

p.s. You've never turneed me on.

[pomeroo]

Pom, I'm struggling with myself over telling you this, so I thought I'd put it on the quieter of the threads you've posted in.

Last night I watched a couple of Hardfire episodes featuring Fetzer to cheer me up on a Saturday night after my girlfriend had bought some chocolate ice-cream. (That wasn't the hard part of the day by the way. That was the good bit, just to clarify things.) I don't know if it was the ice-cream or not but she thought you were hot. She's still asleep at the moment and I'm disturbed. I'm not making this up.

Is this a celebrity reaction you often get or is my girlfriend just odd? (I'll refrain from giving my opinion - or showing her this thread.)

Bananaman.

p.s. You've never turneed me on.


I've never turned you on? Never!? C'mon, Bananaman, fess up! We both know better.

(Seriously, both Mongo and Pomeroo straight.)

Tell your gal that one nasty old guy was very flattered.

For some reason, I always had my best results with odd women.

[Bananaman]

For some reason, I always had my best results with odd women.
Taking this thread off on a tangent I have to say I'm the same. My better half, dammit, has opinions. Forceful, unexpected opinions. And she has that unusual talent women have of slicing through what I'm thinking and giving me some truth. I occasionally wonder if troofers ever have their partners tell them in no uncertain terms what they think of them.

But, yes, she did say what I said she said.

Bananaman.

[jhunter1163]

For some reason, I always had my best results with odd women.

If it weren't for odd women, I'd probably still be a virgin.

(I mean no disrespect to the current Mrs. Jhunter1163)

To return this thread to topic, though, Roundhead has continued to cavalierly (snicker*) claim that he has proven the 9/11 commission report to be a lie. I haven't seen anything that even remotely approaches proof, nor do I expect to.

* - I know, I used it before. But I'm a sucker for a good historical joke.

[WildCat]

When roundhead comes back I can't wait to hear him defend his claim that this footnote in a 250 page report was an attempt to make the world believe that the WTC had one gargantuan core column containing all the elevators!
roundhead?

[Travis]

roundhead?

Looks like he's suspended again.

[WildCat]

Bumping for roundhead...

[applecorped]

Roundhead is busy at the moment spamming other threads.